involved in quarrels among themselves, and with officers of the British navy on service in the Mediterranean, and several fatal duels followed; but Commodore Preble, who, with the third American squadron, succeeded Dale and Morris in that sea, put an end to these controversies, and not a single hostile meeting occurred while he was in command. But in 1819 officers of our flag, and British officers in garrison at Gibraltar, indulged in disputes and duels so freely, that the governor finally issued an order forbidding the ships of our navy to enter the port. The attention of the two governments was attracted to the subject; and after several conferences between our Minister in London and Lords Castlereagh and Bathurst, and orders from the President to the American Commodore in the Mediterranean, harmony was restored.

These general remarks will suffice. The number and fatality of hostile meetings in the United States are to be deplored. These pages are filled with accounts which are disreputable to us as a people, and which may well cause us to hang our heads in utter shame. If the custom were principally confined to the new States, we might find some reason to hope that, in the rapid changes in American society, the evil would soon diminish, and in the end disappear; but Arkansas and California, unfortunately, are not alone.

We pass, to notice the measures that have been attempted or adopted to suppress duelling. In Congress, as early as 1802, Mr. Gray of Virginia moved (in the House) to appoint a committee to inquire into the expediency of a law to disqualify any person from holding an office under the government of the United States, who should thereafter be concerned in a duel, or in sending or carrying a challenge; but the House refused to consider the subject.

In 1806, however, an act was passed for the regulation of the army, which provides, that "no officer or soldier shall send a challenge to another officer or soldier to fight a duel, or accept a challenge, if sent, upon pain, if a commissioned officer, of being cashiered; if a non-commissioned officer or soldier, of suffering corporal punishment, at the discretion of a court-martial." In 1820, after the fall of Decatur, a resolution was submitted to the Committee on Military Affairs, with a design to provide by law a more effectual remedy to prevent duelling in the army and navy, and in the District of Columbia; but the Committee reported, that the existing law, "if executed," was "amply suffi

cient," and asked, therefore, to be discharged from further duty. In 1824, Mr. Wright of Ohio offered a resolution embracing substantially the objects of Mr. Gray's resolve in 1802; which, though referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, was hardly heard of afterwards. In the Senate, in 1831, Mr. Livingston attempted, by means of a special committee of that body, to call the attention of Congress to the subject of duelling in the District of Columbia, but without success. The fatal result of the meeting between Cilley and Graves, in 1838, induced renewed efforts to suppress the barbarous custom at the seat of government; and a bill "to prohibit the giving or accepting, within the District of Columbia, a challenge to fight a duel, and for the punishment thereof," after protracted and violent opposition, became a law, February 20, 1839. In 1843, at the instance of Mr. Stratton, the Committee on Naval Affairs were instructed by the House "to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill for the suppression of duelling in the navy "; but, as in the previous inquiries relative to that branch of the public service, to the army, and to the civil departments of the government, above mentioned, no legislation followed.

In turning to the individual States, we find that statute provisions against single combats exist in all of them. In some the punishment is death, in others imprisonment, in still others disqualification to hold office. Nay, more. The Constitutions of Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Connecticut, Missouri, and California, contain stipulations on the subject which seem ample. The degree of respect paid to both statute and constitutional law, in many of the States of the Union, fully appears in these pages, and need not be discussed here.

SWEDEN.

My notes relate to the reign of Gustavus Adolphus exclusively. About the year 1627, when duelling had become an evil of alarming magnitude throughout Europe, the king determined to suppress it entirely in his dominions. He accordingly established a Court of Honor, composed of the principal officers of his army, to try such offences as usually, in the estimation of gentlemen, required an appeal to the duello; and ordained that the sendingor the accepting of a challenge should be punished with death.

But military men were not content with the arrangement, and preferred, at every hazard, to redress their own wrongs; and to some extent continued to do so. A memorable instance of this preference has been preserved. Two of his officers, who had served him long and faithfully, and who desired to fight, but were unwilling to displease him or incur the penalty of the edict, urged, in a petition to the throne, that in their case liberty for a duel might be granted. Gustavus consented. The two officers, attended by their friends, repaired to the appointed ground, where the king, with a body of troops, soon also appeared, and formed a circle around them. The combatants finished their preparations in the royal presence, took their places, and drew their weapons, when their attention was attracted to a personage within the ring, who, with a sabre, seemed ready to become a party to the combat. "Do not be surprised, gentlemen," said the king; "according to the laws of your country, your lives are already forfeited...... You will therefore take notice, that, the instant either of you falls by the sword of his antagonist, the executioner, whom you perceive yonder, has orders to strike off the head of the survivor." The officers, ashamed and confounded, fell at the feet of their sovereign and implored his forgiveness, which was granted, on the condition of their reconciliation, and a solemn engagement to obedience in the future.

The biographer of Gustavus adds, that he declared that he would on no other occasion forgive those who offended in like manner. "It is my wish," he said, "to have soldiers under my command, and not gladiators. If any man is desirous of freeing his character from the imputation of cowardice in the eyes of his fellow-countrymen, let him do so at the expense of the common enemy." All honor to the great king of Sweden; but I derive an incident from another source, which affords proof that his course was governed by reasons of state alone; since, in the height of his glory, we find him passing the frontier of his dominions for the sole purpose of "offering the satisfaction of a gentleman" to one of his own officers whom he had offended. (See Gustavus the Second and Colonel Seaton.)

GERMANY.

Göt

In ancient times duels could be fought in Witzbourg, Uspach, and Halle, but nowhere else in the German dominions. tingen, in later days, has been famous for the combats between

students of its University. About the year 1816, especially, the number of duels became alarming, and rigid measures were adopted to suppress them. At present, the government of the empire seems disposed to perform its duty. In 1851 the survivor of a duel was compelled by the authorities to be present at the post-mortem examination of the body of his victim, and to pay strict attention to the proceedings of the surgeons.

PRUSSIA.

Charles Frederic was the determined foe of duelling, and exerted his power to suppress it. But he often lamented his failure.

His successor, in 1786, established a Court of Honor for the trial of personal differences, and ordained that the duellists should be subject to the following penalties:

66

Any officer or gentleman striking his equal, in any manner whatsoever, to be declared infamous, and be confined in a fortress for life.

"If the person who received the blow should happen to be the aggressor, by any sort of outrage, he shall be confined for three or six years, according to the aggravation of his offence; and if an officer, he shall be struck off, besides the imprisonment. Persons sending or accepting a challenge, instead of applying to this Court, to be confined in a fortress for three or six years.

"A duel taking place, and one of the parties being killed, the survivor to be considered as an assassin, and punished with death; and if none of the parties should fall, both shall be imprisoned in a fortress for ten years, and even for life.

"Persons laying hold of a weapon in a private quarrel, though making no use of it, to be confined for three years.

66

Any person threatening another with a duel, or some material injury, to be considered as a violator of the public peace, and confined for one or two years.

"Any person flying his country, after fighting a duel, to forfeit his estate during his life, and his effigy to be stuck to the pillory.

66

Any person acting in a duel as second, to be punished with five years' imprisonment in a fortress; and a life being lost, the confinement of the second to extend to ten years.

66

Any person abetting or enticing another to demand satisfaction by means of a duel, to be punished with one or several years' imprisonment. The same punishment to be inflicted on any one casting a reflection on, or showing a pointed disrespect for, a person applying to this Court. The offender, in this case, to be likewise deprived of his employments and titles of honor.

"Any dispute attended with extraordinary circumstances, to be referred to the throne."

These regulations had some influence in checking the evil for a time; but in the lapse of a few years, duellists in Prussia were as numerous as elsewhere in Europe, and were as seldom punished. The penalty in that kingdom, in 1842, was imprisonment, except in "foul fighting," when it was death. That the laws upon the subject were sometimes enforced, appears from the fact, that, a few years previous (1828), a nobleman, who slew his antagonist, was deprived of all his honors, and that those concerned in the affair were committed to close prison.

NAPLES.

The Neapolitans have been regarded as the best swordsmen in Europe. Perhaps they are so. They have unfaltering faith in the duello; but, contenting themselves with inflicting a wound, or with merely drawing blood, their affairs of honor are seldom serious or terminate fatally.

MALTA.

As late, certainly, as the year 1832, duelling was allowed by law. But the parties were required to meet in a certain designated street, and to put up their swords at the request or command of a woman, an ecclesiastic, or a knight. It was the custom to commemorate a death by duel by painting a cross on the wall opposite to the spot where the victim was slain. A traveller counted some twenty of these mementos.

CHAPTER III.

TOURNAMENT, OR MOCK DUEL.- JOUST. CHAMPIONSHIP OF ENGLAND.- - PRIZE FIGHT.-BOXING.

TOURNAMENT, OR MOCK DUEL.

SOME writers are disposed to find the germ of the tournament in the public games and contests of Greece and Rome, while others, anxious to find no resemblance between it and any custom of antiquity, treat it as an institution purely Gothic, and as